Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 4

Unprotect that baby!
Oh, what the heck. I'm going to unprotect the article and see what happens - it's been protected for a couple weeks, which is ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. I will try to edit the article to bring it up to date with the various suggestions, hopefully before the Philistines move in again (in which case it might be necessary to re-protect!). What I propose is:


 * 1. Edit the Intro to include cultural relevance, as proposed by A.
 * 2. Include material from the first three paras of the German version, as proposed by Rd232.
 * 3. Check referencing throughout, as proposed by A.
 * 4. Re-organise headings, as proposed by Rd232.
 * 5. Delete Skepticism section, as half-mooted by Rd232.
 * 6. Move Rollet from Further reading to Sources.
 * 7. Delete remaining Further reading section entirely, unless anybody objects.
 * 8. Add proposed new External link.


 * As all of this will take time, I don't propose to try and do it all at once!
 * Any objections? Can we at the same time remove the NPOV tag? --PL 10:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done what I can. There are probably a few technical sillies. Hopefully somebody will correct them. Does anybody object to removing the NPOV tag? --PL


 * I've removed lots of extra blank lines between paragraphs or sections. And now that the astrology foolishness is dispensed with and the article is in reasonable shape, to the topic at hand: We need the skeptical point of view.
 * The article now reads as if the prophecies are assumed to be real, with the only serious debate being interpretation of the statements and the effectiveness of N's work. But for most people, they are a load of poppycock, an excellent example of humanity's ability to delude itself and find patterns where none exist. This article must discuss that issue - it needs to be mentioned in the introduction, and discussed in a separate section (presumably the "skeptics" section that was removed). Otherwise it would be like having an article about the Flat Earth Society that treats the idea of a flat earth as true.
 * I will do my version of that in one fell swoop, so others can see what they think. - DavidWBrooks 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't figure out a good way to put it in the introduction, so I just returned a much shortened version of the "skepticism" section. - DavidWBrooks 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I made some changes...if they suck, feel free to revert them. Jim62sch 15:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If the former, the apostrophe is misplace: "..Jaume de Nostredame, who was also a prosperous home-grown notary. The latter's family had originally been Jewish, but Jaumes'..." Jim62sch 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it in a French article on Nostradamus. Jim62sch 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the former 'Skepticism' section, then re-titled it. --PL 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

move hoaxes?
This article is so huge - what about if I move most of the "misquotes and hoaxes" to a separate article, leaving a paragraph or so summation and a link to the article? - DavidWBrooks 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

->Yes I agree, since I built the Category:Nostradamus, we could easily write a page "Nostradamus Hoaxes" about everything that is 100% surely not written by Nostradamus, and maybe has a known hoaxing author.

I also agree that a very clear skeptical's SECTION is really needed. We could also build a page about the history, achievements and errors of the Nostradamus interpreters, I would call Gabriele F. for this work.

About Flat Earth... I bought the Scientific American Mag. 1/2006, and is told that in order to explain mathematically how gravity "pulls down" objects is to assume in the equations a FLAT UNIVERSE that makes an olographic projection (like that of those silver stickers), and only our mind and our limited understanding of the real gives us the 3D feeling. I can remember that blind people who see for the first time, see all the objects around inside their eye !

--Giancarlo Rossi 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to read that article -- it contradicts pretty much everything I know about Physics. :)
 * Moving the Nostradamus hoaxes would be good, in fact a few other hoaxes could be added, and what is in the article now could be expanded upon. Jim62sch 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, perhaps a suitable title would be 'Nostradamus: contentious issues'? That would hopefully keep all the nonsense out of the main article as far as possible. Then people could use it to discuss whether he really was or was not a doctor, an astrologer and/or a prophet, whether he could foresee the future, whether it is really possible to arrive at any kind of future scenario from his predictions and - yes - all the various misquotes and hoaxes. Possibly the 'Skepticism' section could be included, too (now retitled)?

I wouldn't be too optimistic about ever being able to settle on any very clear conclusions, though! There would have to be some pretty strict rules about POV, and the best anybody could do would be to summarise the two sides of each issue. --PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So how about setting up a separate 'Nostradamus: contentious issues' article with those two sections to kick it off, then? Anybody feeling creative? David? --PL 10:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

develop idea
Can we develop this a bit further? "A good demonstration of this flexible predicting is to take lyrics written by modern songwriters (e.g., Bob Dylan) and show that they are equally "prophetic"." Jim62sch 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what that's about. It is relevant? --PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe not -- it depends on if it's desirable to show how anything that is somewhat cryptic, can, if twisted about enough, give the appearance of prophesy; or it can just be excised from the article. I have no druthers either way Jim62sch 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

fix this?
Are these intended as footnotes, or references for the sections? "(Brind,Amour [1], Prevost, Gruber, Lemesurier [2] and [3])" Jim62sch 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As throughout, they refer to the listed Sources. --PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, personally I prefer footnotes -- I find them to be more readily accessible and comprehensive, but... Jim62sch 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be Jean? "Jehan (c.1507-77)," Jim62sch 19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it were modern French, yes. But Jehan was the accepted spelling of the time. The h is from the same place as the one in John, etymology Johannes etc. Bill 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know; etymology is one of my areas of expertise. However, I didn't explain myself well: the article notes a "second Jean".  Obviously, either the spelling of the second Jean is incorrect meaning there are two Jehans, or there is no "second" Jean, just a Jehan and a Jean.  I hope I explained myself better this time. Jim62sch 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you nit-picker, you! ;) It seems that the second one was spelt 'Jean' rather than 'Jehan', but everybody knew at the time that they were the same. Whatever you want, though! --PL 10:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re 'what are claimed to be prophecies' in the Intro, mightn't this be a bit too sneering, and apt to provoke the nutters? I mean, they are prophecies, whether correct or not! --PL 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Moi, sneer? OK, you have a point.  Jim62sch 13:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll remove it, then (if it's still there), so that we don't have to spend hours and hours deleting incoming idiocies!


 * Meanwhile, re Crinitus' and Nostradamus', I much prefer 'Crinitus's' and 'Nostradamus's', which is the way I've always published it. But there you go!


 * Thanks for all your attention to detail!--PL 16:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We Americans are very weird about the extra s. I don't know why, but we just are.  I even remember the teacher berating us for using it.  It left permanent emotional scars, and now I have seizures each time I see that s.  ;)  Jim62sch 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! In that case we can't have you having seizures, can we?! ;) --PL 10:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Re book title under Methods, yes, Jim, I would suggest retaining the layout, as it exposes the fact that the actual title was Les Propheties, not necessarily Les propheties de... --PL 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did Ec contact you about that, or did you think I made the change? Anyway, last night Ec asked me if we needed it that way, and I left him a message explaining that it was a facsimile of the title page of the book and needed to remain in that configuration. Jim62sch 14:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, wasn't too sure. Splendid, in that case. If you really wanted to, I suppose you could probably copy in an *actual* facsimile of the 1555 Albi title page from one of the facsimile sites, if you can find one. --PL 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Consistency
Throughout the article, both Nostredame and Nostradamus are used, and the usage is only consistent within each section. It would be best to decide on a specific usage, or to decide that Nostredame will be used in discussing his life, education, marriage, etc, and Nostradamus when discussing the prophesy bit. Jim62sch 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I was bold, I used Nostredame up to the point where he Latinized the name. Jim62sch 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You were absolutely correct to do so, Jim. (I think we could overlook the point that all his canal work occurred after the change!!) --PL 10:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Astrologers -- Keep? Vote?
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that you people keep deleting "Category:Astrologers" from this page -- he may have indeed been ridiculed by the astrologers of his day (source?), but that doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer and thus obviously belongs in said category -- just glance through his quatrains for 5 seconds and you start noticing references to "Mars in Leo" or "Jupiter in Aries."

Sometimes you Wiki-people make no sense -- SURE, go ahead and leave the category off this page...yes, let us toss all logic and FACTS out-the-window just to fit in with your personal pet-views while you whitewash the truth on any given subject. But the fact is that when Nostradamus wrote his prophecies they were largely (if not completely) based on ASTROLOGY -- if that doesn't qualify him as an astrologer then I swear to God(s) dogs will start to fly tomorrow morning...please be reasonable with this and stop being a Wikifascist. G'day. --152.163.100.196 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm a bit doubtful about describing Nostradamus as an astrologer merely because he 'did astrology' (especially bearing in mind his own – or rather his plagiarised – castigation of astrologers at VI:'100'), I agree entirely that the category (or at least 'Astrology') should be included. --PL 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. - DavidWBrooks 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrology over Astrologer I can live with. But calling him an astrologer is like calling someone with medical knowledge but no degree a Doctor.  He was not an astrologer, in fact, calling him such probably further discredits astrology (not that it needs much help in that department).  Jim62sch 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Point noted. But then the category actually listed is 'Astrology', not 'Astrologer'. --PL 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the bottom of the page in "Categories". I'll wait to change it, until you get a chance to see it.  Jim62sch 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes: I agree that that should go. No professional astrologer of the day thought of him as an astrologer, and neither did he (he merely called himself an 'astrophile', or star-lover). Change it to 'Astrology', perhaps? --PL 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You people truly make no sense -- just because no one (or even himself) "thought of him as an astrologer," that doesn't change the fact that HE WAS. He calculated astrological charts and based prophecies on them; he talked about 'conjunctions' and 'astrological signs' and studied books about astrology.  Go ahead and remove the category if you want, but you'll be whitewashing and falsifying history (along with disregarding ALL common-sense) if you do!  --152.163.100.196 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Falsifying history? Uh, OK.  Jim62sch 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to Saint Malachy's from Armagh Prophecy of Popes
IMHO should remain, in the "See Also" part, because Nostradamus seems to give some hints about "De Labore Solis", in the quatrain where he wrotes Pol Man Sol... maybe telling that He was a citizen from Poland. Lands then known by ancient roman (Ovidio) as "Bastarnia". --87.10.217.152 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the goat-cave (caverne caprine) mentioned in X.29 in connection with Pol MANSOL is simply the well-known one in the ancient stone-quarry at St-Paul-de-Mausole (Van Gogh's former asylum), a few hundred yards south of Nostradamus's birthplace at St-Rémy. Thanks to type-setting from dictation at the Lyon printing-house (probably by a compositor who didn't know the area), Paul has simply been transcribed as pol and Mausole as mansol, with the 'u' reversed, just as it has been at IV.27 (which mentions the so-called pyramide at the quarry's centre) and at V.57 (which mentions the Mont Gaussier that overlooks the whole site). The accidental inversion was very common at the time. See colour illustration in Lemesurier [2] for the caverne caprine, which I have explored both individually and with Bernard Chevignard. I grant you that the similarity with De labore solis is tempting (in fact I have to admit to having inadvisedly floated the idea in print myself!), but unfortunately (as you can see) it's an interpretation too far, so a link to Malachy isn't really justified. Thanks for the suggestion, though! --PL 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet more immature antics by young Theo
Well, he's at it again, folks! He doesn't learn, does he? More dubious stuff about astrology. More rubbishing of books that he hasn't even read (it's just his usual bluster and pretence, of course). And as for deleting whole chunks of carefully researched material from the article without any discussion here first, simply because he doesn't like it – how's that for sheer ignorance and arrogance, to say nothing of academic vandalism?

Ah well, no more Mr Nice Guy!... --PL 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but we must assume good faith. Unless the other person acts in bad faith.  M. DeBonton il est mort.  Jim62sch 00:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, Bonton. -- Ec5618 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what Mr Nice Guy assumed. Until he did. ;) --PL 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive?
Time to clear this page and archive it, David? I gather that Theo won't be around to fill it up for a bit... --PL 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so long as we don't archive anything active, yep. Jim62sch 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, perhaps much longer than "a bit"...theo Jim62sch 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a moderate amount when archiving. Hopefully this page won't grow so much now. -DavidWBrooks 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David. It shouldn't do, as long as it's not fed too much more... er... manure! ;) --PL 09:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you do realise how this conversation will appear to Theo when or if he returns, don't you? After reading this, he shall certainly be hard pressed to assume good faith. -- Ec5618 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PL was merely being descriptive. In addition, it is highly unlikely that Theo will ever act in good faith.  Like our friend Gastrich, Theo is a man on a mission. Aux yeux de ce jeune homme, la réalisation de l'objectif justifie les moyens. Jim62sch 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you explain here what your 'popups' revision of the article does, Ec? While awaiting your reply, I've reverted Inter's edit for now and added some integral internal links. --PL 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you not familiar with Lupin's Navigation popups? Through an addition to a user's monobook.css, a popup of sorts is generated whenever that user hovers over a link. It allows for easy access to certain features, such as going directly to an article's talkpage, when only a link to the article itself is available. And it allows one to quickly revert an edit.
 * In this case I used it to revert a vandalous edit to the article, which disabled a wikilink . Your reversion was unnecessary.
 * As for Theo, I hope you're right. I've not had dealings with him, but it doesn't sound as though he's a Wikipedian at heart. Ends do not justify vandalism, and it seems a wholly ineffective way of making a point. -- Ec5618 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite! For a full account of his case, please see this. Sorry about the reversion: I was unfamiliar with the popups thingy, and wasn't sure quite who was reverting whom! Best --PL 09:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some type of link to Goethe's Faust would be nice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust%2C_Part_1 (maybe it can give some solemnity to the article) -Giancarlo Rossi 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ich habe keine Ahnung warum. Jim62sch 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so Goethe mentions Nostradamus once at Faust Part 1(i), but... ;)


 * For what it's worth, my published translation of it runs:


 * Up! Flee far, far across the land!
 * And let this dark, mysterious tome
 * From Nostradamus' very hand
 * Suffice to guide you as you roam.


 * However, all sorts of other, more directly relevant links are about to go in... --PL 09:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, lots of new links done. Not Goethe, though! :)

One or two of them don't manage to come up with the actual 'external link' symbol: not too sure why. --PL 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They are there (virtually) but not physically. Odd.  Jim62sch 13:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't we all?! ;) --PL 16:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see no missing icons. -- Ec5618 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would figure! ;) Seriously, though, try 'X.72' and 'letter 41'... --PL 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In my setup, both show an icon. -- Ec5618 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strornry! Evidently 'you can't please all of the people all of the time'! ;) --PL 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I notice this article is using a lot of alternative formatting. If no-one objects, I'd like to change it.

Just so you know: The manual of style objects to the use of boldface outside of the first line of text. It also suggests that link contructions such as "..his tomb remains to this day." should be replaced by footnotes, to appear like this "..his tomb remains to this day ."

And the use of symbols such as [2] to refer to footnotes is hardly standard. -- Ec5618 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, to take your points in order:
 * 1. The bold face references to the Sources would in that case need to be turned into actual internal links.
 * 2. If the external links are to be replaced by footnotes (a policy which I believe Jim also supports), then it will of course need to be done thoroughly and consistently throughout (!). (Do people actually read footnotes?!)
 * 3. The [bracketed numbers] correspond to the [bracketed numbers] currently within the Sources section. If [numbered references] to items within the Sources section are to be replaced with something else, then the individual items within that section will need to be numbered or made directly indentifiable in some other way. That in turn will tend to 'freeze' the items in the section. Any ideas?


 * Over to you! Care to discuss these points first? --PL 16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I plan to turn "See Links" into "See the Links section". (The link would work, in the actual article.)
 * And to turn The Prophecies into The Prophecies . (The actual reference would appear in the references section.)
 * Consistent footnoting is easy, especially with some help in finding quotes to go with the referenced sources.
 * And turning the bracketed numbers into proper footnotes shouldn't be hard, though I may miss one or two initially. I suggest including relevent sources (directly references sources) to the sources section and the references section. I'd hate to break up the sources section, but not all sources seem to have been specifically used in the article.
 * I'll try, initially, to leave the bracketed references alone, hoping that I may think of something clever. Initially, I'd create internal links to sections, and change external links to footnotes. You may want to see timeline of evolution for what I believe to be good footnoting. -- Ec5618 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * EC, go for it...I started and then gave up because of the differing formats. (I haven't your patience with this stuff.) Jim62sch 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Have a go (if you think that the article is now stable enough), as long as readers would find it easy to operate. Not sure about finding actual quotes to go with the referenced Sources, though, since often the reference is to the general burden of the source rather than to any particular page, but the foonotes for these could in each case simply quote author, title, publisher and date, borrowed from the existing Sources section (I could always add page numbers where appropriate once you get it set up). Ditto, in fact, for the [bracketed] references! Wouldn't that solve the problem? Meanwhile, I propose that, in addition, the existing Sources section itself remain as it is as a general reference, since all titles have in fact been used as a background for the article, even if not necessarily as a foreground, and the list is useful to anybody wanting to research the background to the article. Would the footnote numbers adjust automatically if somebody subsequently added another reference? --PL 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just begun work, and am shocked by the number of odd references. The article includes links to (irrelevant) images, online copies of books, and even web searches (powered by Atomz). I'm sorry, but can't untangle this mess in any reasonable amount of time. As I see it: many so-called references should be removed or relegated to the external links section. This should be an encyclopedic article, not a tourist guide. Also, all links to books should be listed at the bottom of the article, in a simple format such as:
 * Galen - a description of the text
 * Online version at propheties.it Galen
 * I may try again, at some point. But not now. -- Ec5618 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should simply remove all links to websearches and images, for now. They will be accessible through the history, and can be added back in (should they be required) at a later time. I don't find them useful though, and they would probably make poor references.
 * I would also remove inline links to online books, as providing such links within the body of the text isn't relevant. Interested readers may find such links in the 'external links' section, or in some sort of bibliography section. -- Ec5618 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, judging by the way you describe it, it does seem a mess! I would urge against removing anything, though, until we have something better to replace it with. I would have thought that the images are far from irrelevant, in that they illustrate the area and/or the point currently being made without indulging in the tourist guide from which they are taken, thus helping to impress upon readers that Nostradamus was a flesh-and-blood figure living in a flesh-and-blood environment, and not some kind of insubstantial myth, as might sometimes seem to be the case from the popular literature. Better to have them referred to externally than actually incorporated into the article, which would be the other way of doing it. I would have thought that references to online copies of the books being referred to, or to search sites leading to them, was an ideal way of referencing the article. --PL 10:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the real question is: does the present formatting work for the the reader, who can either click on the links or not as he or she prefers (rather than 'does it conform strictly to preferred Wikipedia practice')? By the way you're describing it, it rather seems that any attempt to change it is likely to result in something worse and more complicated, rather than something better and simpler. This might suggest that it's best to leave it as it is – for now, at any rate. (I  thought you were proposing to take on something rather daunting!) Nobody else seems to have complained so far. What do others think? --PL 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that the images make the article seem like little more than an extension of 'propheties.it'. While the images may paint a picture of Nostradamus as a real man, that isn't the intention of an encyclopedia per se. Within the text itself, the images serve no purpose. I still advocate removing them, or listing them as 'additional resources' (in other words, under 'external links'). (1)


 * Linking to books directly isn't necessary. The article should contain all relevant information, and should certainly refer to specific books and articles, but it needn't direct the reader away from Wikipedia. I mean to say, the section on his childhood states Nostradamus was born in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, which would ideally be accompanied by a reference. For example, the first line of that section could read:
 * "Born in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence in the south of France in December 1503, Michel de Nostredame was one of at least eight children of Reynière de St-Rémy and grain dealer Jaume de Nostredame, who was also a prosperous home-grown notary."
 * The reference would then refer the reader to a source or sources for that claim. (2)


 * Mentioning a book is good, and wikilinking to an article on the book is even better. But there is no need to link to an online version of a book. Inline references should refer the reader to a source for a given claim, not to additional reading they might like to read. Links to online versions of books should be listed at the bottom, under a bibliography section, which is where readers should expect to find such useful information. (3)


 * Finally, I have no idea what the Atomz searches add to the article. I have followed each link, only to find myself faced with a list of articles. Is the reader supposed to read each article? Is there a specific article I should read, and if so, how do I find it? -- Ec5618 12:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (4)

(1) I'm afraid I disagree. They illustrate the article, just as the various images of Shakespeare illustrate the Shakespeare article - and rather more so than the image currently at the top, which is anachronistic. I believe Britannica would call them 'media'. And who said that showing Nostradamus as a real man isn't the intention of the encyclopedia per se?

(2) What are external references supposed to do, if not direct readers away from the Encyclopedia? Isn't a broadening of knowledge part of the aim? Nostradamus's birth at his birthplace isn't a 'claim' (it's stated by all the sources), but illustrating it helps to confirm the reality of it. Certainly, the reference could take the form of a footnote, but that footnote should then go directly to the picture. If you don't like it to be outside the article, then by all means put it inside it. They are all copyable (I believe), and if they're not, I will happily supply copies.

(3) Agreed that 'additional reading' should appear in a 'further reading' section (we used to have one of those, until it was abandoned as more likely to disinform than inform), but referring directly to the text of a Nostradamus title isn't 'additional reading'. It is germane to the subject itself, especially as most readers have no idea that such texts are actually available and are not merely mythical.

(4) If you would be so kind as to point me to particular examples of what you are talking about, I might be able to answer your questions. If the reference is to a whole text, then it refers to... the whole text. If it refers to a collection of texts, then it refers to... a collection of texts. With more detailed information, I might be able to narrow it down for you.

To sum up, there is no reason why external references shouldn't be linked to footnotes, if that's the way you prefer to do it. There's no reason, either, why authors and/or book titles from the Source list shouldn't be copied directly into the relevant foonotes, either. I see that that's how the Shakespeare article seems to do it. But all I can say is... rather you than me!

What are others' views on this?

Oh, and finally... How are readers supposed to know that reviews of the source-titles and various other Nostradamus books are now available via my User page (faute de mieux), if (as you seem to insist by deleting the link) there's no way of pointing at them? My aim in supplying them was to supply information about them, by way of countering Theo's blanket dismissal of them (without actually reading them, of course). Is such information taboo? To what is one not supposed to add original research, and how is one not supposed to refer to it? How is a report on original research 'original research'? --PL 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. Please explain what you mean by saying (in relation to the supplied reviews of the books in the Source list) 'Wikipedia is not a webhost, and is not a soapbox'. --PL 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like answers to all of PL's questions as well. Whie I agree that the format regarding footnote usage in not being optimized, I think that the rest of the article (including the pix) is fine.  See Goethe. Jim62sch 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have misrepresented my case. This article uses less than standard formatting. A lot of that is easily fixable, certainly. There are a number of things I object to though:


 * Using images is fine. I note that the article on Goethe uses actual images though, rather than linking to an external website. If we cannot find free images, it is a little silly to link to external websites to fix this. Can you imagine Britanica directing readers to a reference book for actual content? If the content is valuable, it should be included directly. If the content is excessive (meaning it exceeds the scope of the article) it should be included as a source or as suggested additional reading. These images do add flavour to the article, but I'm afraid linking to them in this way is not a good idea. Ideally, someone would upload some free images to Wikipedia, to be used in the article. Many Wikipedians have taken to supplying images. I understand we may request images at Requested pictures. Perhaps a local Wikipedian will take some snapshots.


 * You are free to use the images referenced. They are mine. I can supply better resolution ones if needed. --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The way in which inline links are used breaks with standard Wikipedia formatting: linking to an image, by linking the word 'tomb' is simply not done, anywhere on Wikipedia. If anything, such a link would be included through parentheses: (See an image of the tomb[2]). The word tomb, by itself, should only be linked to the tomb article.


 * Fine. Go ahead, though that point becomes redundant if you include the images. --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Linking to web searches is useless. I hope we can agree on this. Any reader can search the web. Linking to actual webpages is useful, especially when those pages are used as sources for the article.


 * Once again, if you care to specify the cases in question, I can answer your point. Otherwise, there's no chance, is there? --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bolding is generally used only in the first line, to highlight the subject.


 * Sure. Please address. --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently, I feel that readers are excessively referred to the 'sources' section.


 * This was in response to the not unreasonable suggestion above that all facts liable to be rubbished by the nutters be referenced. Since you are liable to find this a major problem in the future (Nostradamian facts always provoke the nutters, who are liable to be drawn in in droves, as I know from long experience), it will be as well to get all the referencing done now, excessive though it may seem! --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I could create a subpage (/Draft) to show what I mean. -- Ec5618 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be amenable to that. Jim62sch 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means, once the 'web searches' point has been addressed. (And please excuse my intercalating my replies: it just seemed simpler.) --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, please answer the rest of my points above, as I have better things to do with the rest of my life than squabble about Wikipedia conventions. I have supplied all the information I can, and that's apparently fine. I have supplied all the specific references I can, and that's apparently fine, even if only with reservations. But when I supply the reasons why the chosen Source texts are the chosen Source texts, that's apparently taboo. I'm puzzled, and rather inclined to walk away from the whole thing and let you get on with it... --PL 11:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to get this article to conform to Wikipedia standards. I'm not sure what you're talking about, above, when you say 'taboo'. I merely protested at linking to external sources in this way: relevant information should be contained within the article itself. Refereces are used to refer to sources for that information. External links are provided for those readers who wish to continue their research.


 * Not sure I follow that, but OK. --PL 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have though the 'web searches issue' is quite simple. What does the following weblink add to the text? "Nostredame continued working, presumably as an apothecary (though some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him 'Doctor')". The format suggests that the link will lead one to an article dealing with the fact that many correspondents address him as doctor, not to a websearch (with obviously ever changing results). And again, nowhere does Wikipedia link text in this way.


 * OK, you would need to say in a footnote 'For evidence of this, please refer to his correspondence at...' and then give all of the first three references listed on the site. I thought I was simplifying things by just giving the one reference...


 * Similarly for the 'Roussat' reference to the Livre de l'estat... (try and get the order right!)


 * As for 'letter 41', this takes the reader to letter 31, so he's presumably intelligent enough to scroll down to it: there's no other reference to it, and if you omit it, you will open the door for all the nutters to claim that you're 'just making it up'. (Never understimate the power of received Nostradamian myth to ride roughshod over the actual facts!) --16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The images can be used? That's good. Are you willing to part with the rights to those images completely, or are you considering some sort of fair use licence? In the first case, please use Commons:Special:Upload to upload them to the Commons, in the latter please use Special:Upload. Make sure you detail the licence under which you are providing the images.


 * It'll be the latter, but how about doing the mock-up first, using the referenced images, so that we can see how and where they're going to be? As I shall probably mess it up (it looks pretty complicated to me), I may ask Jim to do it, if he's willing. I wouldn't like to infringe some obscure Wikipedia rule or other!... My idea would be to retain copyright, but license free use by Wikipedia in the article only: any suggestions? --16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, I realise I haven't fully explained my removal of the wikilink to your userpage. Please understand that encyclopedic information should be contained to the actual articles. Linking to other namespaces is simply bad form. Consider also that you are effectively using your user page as an 'external reference' (as the information is apparently unencyclopedic), while still suggesting it is superior to actual external information, because it is still within Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, OK. So it's bad form. Got it. Any other way of letting people know it's there? --PL 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What "user page"?  Additionally, if the material the editor is using is his own, it is acceptable so long as it is published material.  Jim62sch 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My User page! --PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem was that the material was hosted on a WikipediaTalk page. See the diff and the page User:PL. Citing an external source is one thing, but citing personal, non-reviewed text from inside Wikipedia is possibly confusing. This wouldn't be a problem if the information was linked to, though, even then, it should be linked to as a normal external reference, not, as was the case here, as a notice immediately following the text.
 * This should address the issue of 'letting people know it's there', as well. I'm afraid its not possible. The User namespace is simply not meant for such content.
 * As for your uploading and licencing, I'm afraid I'm not quite familiar with the legal codes surrounding licences. I have requested images be uploaded, perhaps someone will be able to upload some completely free images. -- Ec5618 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see where it was connected (and even looking at the version before you edited it, I still don't), but I do believe you that it was there. And, you are correct about using a wikipedia user space.  If, however, that material were published elsewhere it would be OK.
 * As for the licensing of pix, it depends on where they came from originally. Jim62sch 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all of it it was indeed 'published elsewhere' long ago – online, in the Newsgroup alt.prophecies.nostradamus, where it is presumably archived.

The pix we're discussing originally came from me! So the question is: which tag should I use to indicate that I retain the copyright while granting Wikipedia a free licence to use the material in connection with the article, and what else should I put in the box provided – my copyright line?

Re the current re-formatting exercise, I'll wait until you have your draft done, Ec, before attempting to upload and insert the pix. Re these, I suggest retaining the current External Link to 'map' near the top (via a footnote), since, if actually included, the map would have to be half-page size to be legible, and this would disrupt the article. Also I would propose to leave out the pic of N's last resting place, retaining only the pic of his tomb, since these would be too close together and once again make too large a hole in the text. --PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PS Or do you think I could get the map in alongside the Table of Contents? --PL 12:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PPS Er... no. I still think it would get in the way of reading the article, so please stick with the External Ref!

For Those Who Oppose Censorship...
WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members

There is a person plenty of wisdom that keeps deleting my links to:
 * Nostradamus Vaticinia
 * Prophecy of the Popes

''We know where censorship begins, we would never know where it could arrive, be aware that naked faces can be absolutly obscene in certain countries, and they cover themselves with beards. -- --Giancarlo Rossi 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The first of these is of doubtful relevance to Nostradamus, and the second of no relevance at all, but I wouldn't have any objection to the inclusion of the first, doubtful though the published claim of an actual Nostradamus link are. By all means discuss the points here. Have you tried that? --PL 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, it has not been discussed here. The issue at hand here is not one of censorship, but of relevance.  As PL noted, the first is of quite dubious relevance, the latter of no relevance at all.  In fact, inclusion of the the latter would open the way for the inclusion of Edgar Cayce, Jeanne Dixon, et al.
 * Thus the invocation of censorship is both non-germane and ill-advised, although perhaps the usage was a moment reminiscent of the Italian saying, "meglio un giorno da leone che cento da pecora". Ciao. Jim62sch 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Neither Dixon nor Cayce are (probably) 500+ year old prophecies, neither are saints of the Catholic Church, and this Saint Malachy from Armagh prophecies are interesting since they seem almost fullfilled.
 * And: I forgot to tell You... have you ever heard about the french author Roger Fontenac, navy captain and military criptographer, discover in the 50's of a Nostradamus encryption system based on Vigenère cipher?... I see in the Bibliography, always the same names.
 * Meglio mille da Puma delle selve venezuelane... (authoritarism is genuine german style, if we want to underline national attitude, a vote for/against the links should be issued)

--Giancarlo Rossi 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, so? Whether Malachy's nonsense seems fulfilled by those willing to believe anything is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with Nostradamus.  Perhaps you might want to work on the article on Malachy.  To me, this Malachy bit falls in the "nella pentolino pieno di fumo, c'è poca pappa!" category
 * Have you ever seen the Bible Code?
 * Did you mean "is" or "in"? (authoritarism is genuine german ...)   Benny was not German, but was certainly authoritarian.  In any case,there's no reason for any vote: you haven't even made a cogent case for inclusion of Malachy's alleged prophesies, thus you are putting the cart before the horse. Jim62sch 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Giancarlo

Re your proposed link to Nostradamus Vaticinia, I have just placed on my User page for you a review of Ramotti's The Nostradamus Code that I posted on a.p.n many years ago, which addresses the question of the 'mysterious' paintings. You may not agree with it (in fact, I'm sure you won't!), but I think you would have to admit that the mere allegation of Nostradamian involvement reported by Ramotti is not sufficient to merit its inclusion in the External Links list, given that all the other references (however odd one or two of them may be) are quite definitely about Nostradamus, as they of course need to be.

Since one of your sites mentions the work of John Hogue, I have also added a review of his Nostradamus: A Life and Myth to my User page – a work that his publishers insisted on commissioning even after I warned them of the sort of thing they were likely to get!

As to your other suggestion re the Prophecy of the Popes, Nostradamus never in fact mentions St Malachy, and the various allegations that his thrice-repeated expression POL MANSOL is a reference to his list of popes is suggested only by those who are entirely ignorant of the geography of Nostradamus's birthplace, to which the expression clearly refers (as you can see from the referenced illustrations in the piece above). You may, of course, like to think that the three references have an 'ulterior' meaning, but if you do you are merely speculating. This is fine, but it doesn't belong in a factual article about Nostradamus.

Thus, I would suggest that neither reference really qualifies for the External Links list.

Meanwhile, have you noticed that all the proposed systems for 'decoding' Nostradamus (Frontenac included) disagree with each other? ;) The reason why the Source List (not the 'Bibliography') stays the same is that they are what the article was and is based on. Once the building is built, you don't change the foundations! --PL 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very weak defence of your POV, you PL and Jim62sch are losing... the author of the article mentioned his sources, your duty should be to check the sources. You are walking around the object, you're not facing the problem, You should declare yourself incompetent about the matter.


 * No offense, but who the hell are you? Jim62sch 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to cause alarm around here, but he seems extraordinarily familiar to me! :( --PL 11:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, not to me. Of course, I don't know what "walking around the object" means, and the sophomoric bit about "losing" something that is neither a game or a battle makes me question the person's maturity level.  (BTW: this person is not a native speaker of English, I'm guessing?)  Jim62sch 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dismissal of "Vaticinia" by M.N. is a typical proceeding by PL
(I really advise that everybody here (maybe only three persons ?) go to his user-page a get a clear idea of his attitude, reading what he wrote about Nostradamus Vaticinia).

It is shown how does he works when he want to demolish a competitor: (It was the library that stated that the document was "by Nostradamus") well I can only answer that I was able to build a false quatrain in an imperfect french and to encode the name of the pirate FRANCIS DRAKE. --Giancarlo Rossi 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) He ridiculizes everything from the begining, HE KNEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS MANUSCRIPT SINCE 1998... in 7 years, never came to Rome!
 * 2) The Roman national Library has a TELEPHONE... You can call it !
 * 3) He could come here and help to explain several UNPUBLISHED images.
 * 4) For some unknown reasons he states that "is ridiculous" that the encoding language could be italian (or some middle-neolatin-language),
 * 5) I have found that there are names of important people encrypted, with some commenting text accompaying it... as NIXON, FERMI, BERLUS(coni). (Of course I keep the decryptions for MY BOOK !).
 * 6) AND we don't use those vast amounts of letters and several simultaneous decryption systems as in Bible_code.
 * 7) In my point of view we should try to examinate the document with Ultra Violet lights, since an erased pencil writing (or a pus writing) can be easily read with UV lights.

And if you perform the same mysterious decryptions on War and Peace the mind shudders to think what you may find. (BTW: item 4 above makes no sense.) Oh, have you ever decrypted one of Nixon's speeches to see if he returned the favor by encrypting NOSTRADAMUS? Jim62sch 10:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I and others have shown quite convincingly that Nostradamus wrote Ronsard, Baudelaire, Shakespeare, the US Constitution and the Communist Party Manifesto! ;) --PL 10:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And no doubt Ulysses Jim62sch 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It continues to be shown here, PL and Jim62sch - that both of you are not interested in the slightest in a balanced Nostradamus subject. You continual banter serves only to reinforce both of your ability to have anything relating to Nostradamus and true history. You bring shame to yourselves alone with your false claims, and "attempts" to rewrite history on Wikipedia. To the ridiculous claim that Nostradamus was NOT an Astrologer (PL & Jim) to PL's continued slighting and censoring of the author - Nostradamus himself. You statements, and comments are archived, and on the Talk Page for all to see, and it is no wonder why you ridcule myself, and Giancarlo Rossi - both Nostradamus scholars as well. I suggest that PL, and Jim actually learn more about astrology than to cover up their clear ignorance of the science and art of astrology; especially when it comes to Michel Nostradamus. The cynical, rude comments just flow from both of you, PL, and Jim, like some sad tag team. Obviously, your lack of astrological knowledge disqualifies you from even approaching this subject - and this too is clear from your comments, which has little understanding of astrology in general, and the practice of it in Renaissance Europe in particular. But, rather than being honest about it - you smirk, and are rude to others who show they are knowledgable. This proves your negative point-of-view PL, and Jim, and clearly demonstrates your inability to be taken seriously as you pick, and whine constantly like spoiled children. You accomplish nothing, and your "edits" on this subject is proof of that.Theo 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Theo, for your typically positive contribution. --PL 11:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd thought he'd gone. Nonetheless, a rather poorly writen screed once again proclaiming astrology to be the Key to the Universe.  As for the "I'm a Nostradamus scholar, too" bit, I somehow doubt that.  Theo clearly does not read French -- a prerequisite for studying Nostradamus one should think.  Reading bogus English translations and proclaiming oneself to be an expert is as sad as watching the horrid TV movie of The Odyssey and proclaiming oneself to be a Homeric scholar. Jim62sch 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pl, and Jim, you two tend to forget that there are others watching, and monitoring your own edits, and comments as well. There is little "positive" about your contributions Peter, nor your hateful comments Jim. People can read, and I don't consider either of you honest "scholars" or editors. Your own words, and your edits are being scrutinized. So is your lack of good faith, among other failures to be balanced, kind, and true to history. So, keep up the very bad work on Nostradamus that both of you continue to do such as proclaiming that he is not an astrologer. Even a child who has read anything about the author of Les Propheties knows Michel Nostradamus was an astrologer - except, Peter Lemesurier, and Jiim62sch - who profess to be the KEY to all things known about Nostradamus, but who cannot even read a simple horoscope, nor chart of the celestial bodies. Perhaps this accounts for your bad translations, and even worse biographical "knowledge" of Nostradamus, of course, called an astrophile because he practiced astrology as a "hobby." Great work PL, but it doesn't hold water. Word has been out on Peter Lemesurier for years about his lack of astrological knowledge, and even less on Nostradamus, and most scholars avoid his work because of the errors, and poor scholarship to boot. This reflects even on the German-version of Nostradamus which PL has "edited." One of the worst cases of scholarship on an encyclopedia on this subject; which is why he keeps putting out numerous books on Nostradamus. Why is this? Is not one enough since he knows so much?Theo 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Take no notice – the above can't be Theo. He's gone. At least, so he says. Must be his ghost.;) --PL 10:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought he was too, maybe it just takes some people longer to leave. After all, it seems he still has a lot of rambling rants up his sleeve.
 * Bad translations? OK, fine, translate this:
 * Quand de l'ouest viendra sur fil lumière
 * doubiter cynique hérétique du prophesie
 * A lui des abus de cri perçant sauter
 * tandis que l'hérétique rit ouvrir, mais oui.
 * You will be graded. Jim62sch 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaarghhhhh!!! He's at it again!
Now he's started vandalising the article again with his usual old rubbish. Not bad for a non-member, eh? How are we meant to edit the article rationally with this sort of idiocy going on?

Theo, evidently you don't know the originals, you have never studied most of the modern research, and you don't even know French. Is it any wonder that all you manage to do is bamboozle everybody with your ignorant fiction and unsourced claims?

Do some proper research, young man. Until you have, you won't even qualify to edit the article. Until then, have the courage of your convictions and go, before somebody else gives you a helping hand. --PL 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From User:Theodore7
 * I have blocked you for one week for violation of the injunction. Vsmith 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've already left Wikipedia for good. I am not interested in censorship, or banning of views. As a newcomer, my experience has been horrible in the two months I've been a Wikipedian.Theo 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people never learn, and will perpetually be young men intellectually. Jim62sch 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)